Thursday, January 31, 2019

Cuba has a
strong Celtic tradition through immigrants from Asturia and Galacia.
Young people have moved from the gaita to Uilleann pipes, learned to sing sean
nos and taught themselves from videos of Riverdance. They joined Mick
Moloney and the Green Fields of America during three tours of Cuba, shown above
in Santiago de Cuba. The two pipers have been invited twice to study and perform in
Ireland.

We will fly
to Havana on March 16 or 17*, join their celebration in Pinar del Rio on St. Patrick's
Day, visit Vinales and, for as much time as there is interest, explore the Irish and Irish American history in Havana, Artemesia, Mayabeque and Matanzas. Return to the US will be March 23 or 24 or earlier if necessary.Approximate self-paid costs: air
fare + $1200 for bed and breakfasts, meals, transportation, guide for the full trip + $150 contribution

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Review of Mark Day's documentary
film
The San Patricios
The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion
By William H. Mulligan, Jr. *

Produced and directed by Mark R. Day, narrated by James Lancaster,
edited by Joanne Hershfield. Original music by Steven A. Yeaman 49 minutesDay Productions

When
this documentary was first released, the San Patricios were a much-neglected
aspect of Irish American history and the history of the Americas generally.
During the ensuing decade, they have received a great deal of attention both
with the publication of books and with other documentaries, one of which was
shown at the national meeting of the American Conference for Irish Studies in
St. Louis, Missouri, in April 2006. At least some of the credit for rescuing
the San Patricios from neglect must go to Mark Day.

The
story of the San Patriciosis deceptively straightforward. A
group of Irish immigrants who were serving in the United
States army deserted and formed a unit in the Mexican army that fought
against the United States during the war with Mexico. Some had deserted
before the war began, - as it turned out, a salient point - and others after
the war began. The generally harsh treatment of enlisted men in
the US army at the time and discrimination against Irish Catholics
were factors in their desertion - all accounts agree on this point. When
United States forces captured them, those who had deserted after the war
began were hung in an especially cold and calculated way. The leader of the
San Patricios, John Riley, was from Galway and had worked on Mackinac Island,
Michigan before enlisting in the army. There is not much disagreement on any
of these issues.

Where
things begin to diverge is in how the San Patriciosare viewed.
The documentary makes the point that they are honoured in Mexico as heroes
who fought and died for Mexico. A memorial was unveiled in Ireland honouring
them while the documentary was being made. In the United States, they are
often seen as traitors - when their existence is acknowledged at all. For
many years, the US army apparently denied that the incident had ever
happened. Clearly, the incident happened. We can debate why the US army would
deny it. The motivations of the individuals in the unit for their decision,
especially those of their leader John Riley; the motivation behind their
harsh punishment; and what, if anything, the incident tells us about the
position of the Irish in the United States, together with a range of other
historical questions, are less straight forward and are subject to
speculation and debate. Like many immigrants, the individual San Patricios
left little behind with which to study their motivations and thoughts.

However,
the real question in this review is: how effectively does The San
Patricios: The Tragic Story of the St. Patrick's Battalion tell its
story? The answer is neither simple nor straightforward. The production
values generally are first-rate. This is a well-executed, professional piece
of work without question or quibble. It is sharp, clear, in focus at all
times, unlike another documentary on the same topic that I had seen. There
are still too many historical documentaries that do not have these basic
qualities. There is a nice mix of period graphics, scholars offering facts
and interpretations, and footage of battle and other reenactments that are
quite well done. Visually this is a successful production. The documentary
also has a clear argument that organises the information presented and
structures the presentation.

With
the exception of Kerby Miller, the 'expert scholars' are not especially
impressive. One, Rodolfo Acuña, seems to have a political agenda to champion
rather than a historical interpretation to present and journalist Peter
Stevens does not appear to know much about scholarship on Irish migration to
the US, even allowing for the fact that the programme is ten years old, or
much beyond the handed-down, popular history of the Irish in America. This
raises questions about the point of the presentation - is it intended to
explore a little-known episode in US history or is there a
political agenda of accentuating the racism of United States society and past
discrimination against Irish Americans, and even of supporting Mexican groups
seeking to regain the territory lost in the war between the two countries? Neither Acuña nor Stevens
provides much of historical substance nor shows any evidence of a deep
knowledge of the incident itself, US military history, or the history of
Irish migration to the US. Having an opinion is one thing, having an opinion
based on familiarity with the relevant primary source materials and
scholarship is another.

There
are other problems. Riley is an elusive figure and little can be said about
him with certainty. The examination of his character is probably handled as
well as it might be, although the uncertainties undermine a solid acceptance
of the thesis advanced. More troubling is the confused way in which the
history of Irish migration to the United States is presented. Many of the
graphics used to illustrate life in Ireland date from after the period when
Riley and the other San Patricios left. They do not show their Ireland, but a
later, post-famine Ireland that was markedly different. The entire discussion
of Irish emigration to the United States is confused at best, especially as
it relates to the war between Mexico and the United States. Kerby Miller
tries to sort it out, but the other experts do not seem to have the
chronology clear in their own minds. The discussion of the idea of Manifest
Destiny in the United States is weak, especially in relation to the issue of
slavery. Since it was a critical factor in the war, it should be more fully
and clearly developed. There are other issues, mostly small ones that could
be raised.

Despite
these problems, the programme succeeds, to a considerable extent, in
achieving its goals. The San Patricios are portrayed in a sympathetic light
and the brutality of their treatment is clear. It sustains interest
throughout because of its technical excellence. In raising questions and
making the viewer engage with the topic and seriously weigh the material
presented, even if in disagreement, it has accomplished a great deal. As a
testament to the significance of the documentary, I will be using it in my
military history course because its perspective needs to be considered
seriously and the issues it raises discussed.

I
would like to thank Dr. Mulligan for his kind remarks about the San Patricios
documentary, especially his reference to the film's production values as
first rate.

I
would also like to thank him for his scholarly analysis of the documentary's
treatment of Irish immigrants, the unjust US intervention in Mexico of 1847
and the doctrine of Manifest Destiny that to this day influences US foreign
policy. This is exactly the kind of discussion that I hoped this documentary
would spark. The purpose of all historical texts should be reflection on
times past and how they speak to us in the present. In that spirit, I would
like to share some of my thoughts regarding the ideas expressed in his
review.

Mulligan
asks: 'Is it intended [my documentary] to explore a little known episode in
US history, or is there a political agenda of accentuating the racism of US
society and past discrimination against Irish Americans, and even of
supporting Mexican groups seeking to regain the territory lost in the war
between the two countries?' In other words, does Mark Day have a political
agenda, a specific point of view, a bias? Yes, of course. Everyone operates
from his/her particular bias. To deny bias becomes an agenda in itself. There
is no such thing as 'pure' history. Historical facts are interpreted. And
those interpretations are themselves historically contingent.

The
most commonly recounted history of the US, from the genocidal treatment of
Native Americans through slavery and on to the military conquest of Mexico,
has been the grand narrative written by the victors, not the losers. One of
the chief spoils of conquest and colonisation is the power to tell the
stories of history. Traditionally, these storytellers are, for the most part,
white, conservative and middle-aged men who believe the lens through which
they interpret the world is pure and unbiased. In other words, the
normalising gaze of power hides the reality that history is always told
through an ideological lens. The question that I believe to be most important
is: Who benefits from this interpretation of historical facts? Not to do so
belies a cultural blind spot, a blind spot born of the privilege of power.

So
instead of stories about resistance from Native Americans and the rebellions
of slaves, we learn about the exploits of presidents and generals. Instead of
life and death struggles of workers and trade unions, we are told about
wealthy bankers and the golden ages of industry and commerce. And instead of
learning about the humiliation of Mexico with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
in 1848, we are regaled with stories about the rugged individuals who tamed
the West. We learn about History with a capital 'H,' but very little about
the histories of the people who shaped and were affected by the onward rush
of events. We seldom learn about history told from the bottom up.

Historian
Howard Zinn points out some examples of this historical amnesia. He writes
about the glorification of Christopher Columbus as a man of skill and
courage, but the omission of criticisms from contemporaries such as Fray
Bartolomé de las Casas. The latter writes of Columbus: 'The admiral was so
anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the
Indians' (Zinn 1990: 57).

Zinn
also mentions historians' omission of the Ludlow massacre of miners' wives
and children by the Colorado National Guard in 1913. He suggests that it
might be considered 'bold, radical, or even communist' to talk about these
class struggles in a nation that prides itself on the oneness of its people.
And where, he wonders, are the stories about the abolitionists, labour
leaders, radicals and feminists? Zinn writes that the 'pollution of history'
happens not by design, but when scholars are afraid to stick their necks out,
and instead play it safe (Zinn 1990: 62; Zinn 2003). This provides strong
evidence that the project of history itself is inherently political.

This
is why the story of the San Patricios always intrigued me. I first learned
about this motley band of mostly Irish renegades from César Chávez when I
worked as an organiser with the United Farm Workers Union in the late
sixties. But it was due to the scholarly work of Robert Ryal Miller and his
book, Shamrock and Sword (University of Oklahoma Press,
1989), that I discovered the story behind the battalion, formed by Irish
immigrants in the Mexican army. Later, working on the film put me in contact
with several Mexican scholars and ordinary citizens who saw the story from a
totally different angle, from the viewpoint of the conquered, the vanquished.
I also spoke with experts on nativism in mid-nineteenth century America.

This
leads to another question. Are there parallels in the nativist attacks
against the Irish in US history and the resurgence of nativism against
Mexican and Latin American immigrants today? I would suggest that parallels
are to be found in the tendency to exploit and scapegoat newcomers, the
shared colonial experience and Catholic faith, the crude stereotypes applied
to both groups, and the perceived threats of immigrants to the job market and
American culture, to name a few. The similarities in nativist rhetoric from
that period are so closely related to the current situation that you can
simply remove the word 'Irish' and replace it with 'Mexican'. Few people
today would recognise the difference. But I did not make this documentary to
accentuate nativism and racism. These realities come forth because they were
endemic to that period, much to the dismay of those who would like to
downplay them for ideological reasons.

Lastly,
was the intent of the San Patricios documentary to support those who wish to
regain the territory that Mexico lost with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo?
Hardly. Aside from commentator Lou Dobbs of CNN and his nightly nativism, the
only people talking about the so called reconquista or
re-conquest of the Southwest are fringe groups like the Minutemen vigilantes
and Pat Buchanan, who attract a miniscule following among ordinary US
Americans. Most Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigrants, like their
nineteenth-century Irish counterparts, simply want what most US Americans
seek - to live in peace, to work hard and to be accepted, like everyone else.
In short, they are seeking the US American dream. It has been gratifying to
witness the lively discussions at the screenings of the San Patricios, to
watch the interchanges between disparate groups of people, and to get
feedback from students and professors who have benefited from the film. If it
advances understanding about Irish immigrants in the nineteenth century and the
situation in Mexico, then and today, I am more than satisfied.

However,
another account of the movie’s demise has been circulating on the internet. It
suggests that the film came a cropper as a result of national sensitivities.

The
internet tale alleges that MGM pulled the plug on the production because a top
official in the company believed the film to be "anti-American."

"California
became part of the United States as the result of the Mexican American War.
Even hard-bitten old soldiers like Ulysses S. Grant thought the war a blatant
land grab and a national disgrace," the web account, put out by a group of
San Francisco-based Irish American activists, suggests.

The
internet account continued: "An MGM executive, when asked why the company
was giving the film the silent treatment, replied he considered it
‘anti-American.’"

"I
find that offensive," said MGM’s Marashinski. "We advertised
"One Man’s Hero" in newspapers and we had a campaign aimed at
Hispanics that cost a lot of money. The audience dropped by 87 percent last
weekend because the word of mouth is bad," she said.

Marashinki
said that the favorable reviews had not mattered for the film which was
actually made by Orion pictures. While she believed that it was still
"holding on" in one or two theaters she reiterated her initial
assessment. "It bombed," she said.

One
veteran Hollywood observer who has seen "One Man’s Hero" told the
Echo that, overall, the reviews of the picture were accurate.

While
he found some scenes, one of them depicting Irish dancing, a bit wide of the
mark, the filmgoer, who preferred not to be named, described "One Man’s
Hero" as "a very serious effort, faithfully true, a wonderful
account."

"The
film started off quite slowly but the drama increased to the point that battle
scenes were reminiscent of what Kenneth Branagh achieved with limited resources
in Henry V," the observer said.

The
film climaxes with a gut-wrenching scene in which captured San Patricio
soldiers are branded and hanged as the American flag is raised before their
eyes.

The
film closely reflects the story of the San Patricios as documented in a recent
book, "The Irish Soldiers of Mexico," written by Michael Hogan of the
American School of the University of Guadalajara.

The
book debunks a popular image of the San Patricios as being little more than a
bunch of drunken deserters from the U.S. Army. It points out that known
deserters represented only about a third of the total membership, while the
majority were in fact European or Mexican citizens, and not citizens of the
United States. Many of them were reacting to anti-Catholicism in the U.S.
military.

One
reviewer of the book, James Fogarty, wrote that Hogan’s book revealed that
labeling the group as American deserters was a tactic that had been manipulated
by biased historians who "ignore the fact that at least 46 known members
were not deserters and that many were Irish residents of Mexico prior to the
invasion of Mexico by U.S. forces."

The
review added: "Hogan also indicates that declaring oneself to be Irish and
Catholic in the U.S. army at that time was akin to declaring oneself Jewish in
Nazi Germany, a point graphically made by the Mexican-Jewish artist, Luis
Camnitzer."

Tuesday, January 15, 2019

The Cuban-American residents of Miami-Dade County
are evenly split on their views about the U.S. embargo
of Cuba. Half of the population favors the continuation
of the embargo and half favors cessation. Opposition
to the embargo rises to 65% among Cuban Americans
ages 18 to 39. Similarly, 60% of those arriving since
1995 oppose continuing the embargo. Among
registered voters, the same 50-50 split is evident.
(Figure Cluster 3). The rise in support for the embargo
is largely due to the apparent shifting of views of the
pre-1979 cohort. The 1959-1979 migrants increased
their antagonism to lifting the embargo by over 10%
points between the 2016 and 2018 polls.

A majority of respondents favors increasing economic
relations with the island. The expansion or maintenance
of the existing business relations receives support from
68% of the sample. As in most engagement initiatives
measured in the poll, there is a significant split between
the views of earlier arrivals (before 1980) and those who
left Cuba after 1995. The post-1995 migrants, along with
second and third generations not born on the island, are
much more likely to support the expansion of business
ties (55% and 60% respectively—Figure Cluster 4).
Figure Clusters 5 and 6 present the support for allowing
U.S. companies to sell food and medicine to Cuba.

Half of the respondents would allow investment by
American residents and citizens in the private business
enterprises emerging in Cuba. The post-1995 migrants
and those born outside of Cuba are more supportive of
increasing investment opportunities than the population at
large (59% and 69% respectively) while pre-1995 cohorts
are dead set against the idea (Figure Cluster 13).

A large majority (63%) supported the decision to open
diplomatic relations with Cuba, with post-1995 arrivals
and second and third generation Cuban Americans
strongly backing the Obama era policy shift (75% and
77% respectively). Support for the reestablishment of
diplomatic ties maintains a solid majority among all age
groups up to age 76 and above, after which it drops to
a 31% support. A majority (61%) of registered voters
express support while this figure balloons to 77% among
non-registered voters (Figure Cluster 7).

A strong majority of respondents (57%) favors the
lifting of travel restrictions impeding all Americans
from traveling to Cuba. Unsurprisingly, the newer
arrivals and those not born on the island lead the
charge in supporting unrestricted travel (68% and
69% respectively) while the pre-1980 migrants oppose
free travel by almost the same proportion (63%).
Approximately 55% of registered voters also favor
unrestricted travel by all Americans (Figure Cluster 9).
n Similarly, 65% of the respondents support the
continuation of “people-to-people” travel opportunities
currently endorsed by U.S. policy, with all age cohorts,
except for the 76 and above cohort, expressing majority
support. Sixty two percent of registered voters favor the
policy as well (Figure Cluster 11).

A majority of respondents agree with the termination
of the “wet foot/dry foot” immigration policy—52% to
41%, with 8% unsure of their views. Those coming after
1980 are lukewarm to the change of policy (only about
40% support its termination) while those leaving Cuba
before 1980 and those born outside of Cuba maintain
a sturdy base of support for its abolition (64% and 55%
respectively—Figure Cluster 8).

While the population remains Republican in its voter
registration (54%), the new arrivals and younger
voters are fueling the growth of the Independent, or
what the State of Florida officially labels “no party
affiliation” registrants (26%). The Republican turnout
was a significant factor in the midterm elections.
Approximately 70% of Cuban Americans voted for
Governor Ron DeSantis, 69% for Senator Rick Scott,
and 72% percent of the general vote for Congressional
House Representatives was in support of the Republican
candidate, even when two of three most significant races
(Shalala/Salazar and Curbelo/Murcasel-Powell) were
decided for Democrats.

When asked to list the issues that influence them to vote
for a specific candidate, the economy and jobs, health
care, gun control and taxes topped the list. A candidate’s
position on Cuba ranked dead last in motivating the
Cuban-American vote.

Trump's Cuba policy hurts private sector, new figures say

HAVANA — President Donald Trump's Cuba policy is driving millions of dollars from the island's private entrepreneurs to its state-run tourism sector, the opposite of its supposed goal, according to new government figures.

Trump announced in June 2017 that he was tightening limits on U.S. travel to Cuba in order to starve military-linked travel businesses and funnel money directly to the Cuban people.

He restricted Americans' ability to travel to Cuba on their own, rather than with a tour group.* At the same time, he allowed U.S. cruise lines to continue to take passengers to Cuba, where they pay millions to disembark at military-run docks and make quick trips onshore that are generally coordinated by government tour agencies that stejrer travelers to state-run destinations.

Cuban government figures from the first full year under Trump's policy show occupancy of private bed-and-breakfasts in Havana plunged to 44 percent in 2018 after years at near capacity in the wake of President Barack Obama's start of normalization with Cuba, said Michael Bernal, commercial director for the Ministry of Tourism.

Even as the private sector suffered, U.S. travel to Cuba was growing, from 618,000 in 2017 to 630,000 last year, Tourism Ministry figures say. Most of those travelers came by ship, avoiding the confusing rules on travel to the island with package tours that are guaranteed to comply with the law.

The shift to cruises meant the average U.S. stay on the island dropped from six days to three, said Jose Luis Perello, a former University of Havana professor who studies Cuba's tourism industry.

That has had a devastating effect on owners and employees of Cuba's 24,185 private bed-and-breakfasts and 2,170 private restaurants known as paladares. They cherished U.S. travelers as heavy tippers who crammed days full of activities like classic car rides and cooking classes that put money into private hands.

David Pajon, a university professor who bought an apartment to rent in Old Havana, said he has had to drop his rates and his income has fallen 40 percent since Trump's new policy went into effect in 2017. He still was a third empty last month, the first time in three years that he wasn't fully booked in December.

"U.S.-Cuba normalization inspired a lot of people who thought this was a good business to invest their savings in," Pajon said. "And all of a sudden you have the U.S. government creating a situation that has an impact on the number of people who came, or changes the way they're coming — on cruise ships!"

The Trump measures, which were backed by Cuban-American Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, ban U.S. travelers from doing business with tourism businesses under the military-linked conglomerate known as GAESA, which runs dozens of hotels and a major tour-bus line, among others.

Instead, Americans are going to businesses run by the Tourism Ministry, but there is no reason to believe that Cuba has any difficulty transferring money within its highly centralized single-party government, said Richard Feinberg, a Brookings Institution fellow and University of California, San Diego, professor of international political economy who studies Cuba.

"Trump's policies have reduced on-island, versus cruise ship, tourism and thus harmed B&Bs as well as other private tourism-related firms including paladares and taxistas," Feinberg said. Beyond that, he said, "the only traceable impact of the Rubio sanction is to inconvenience US tourists."

The number of U.S. travelers to Cuba grew from 162,000 in 2015, the year after Obama and then Cuban President Raul Castro announced detente, to 284,000 in 2016 and 618,000 in 2017.

The overall number of travelers grew, too, from 3.5 million in 2015 to 3.7 million in 2016, 4.3 million in 2017 and 4.7 million last year.

Nonetheless, the private sector suffered.

Enrique Nunez, owner of La Guarida, perhaps Havana's best-known restaurant, said he had to cut his employees' hours last year because his revenue fell 40 percent.

"We don't understand the U.S. rules," said Bernal, the tourism official. "We heard the president's speech saying that the U.S. government supports entrepreneurs. However, that's the sector that's suffering most in Cuba."

* Wrong. All that happened is that independent travel was transferred to the category Support for the Cuban People. The only "restriction" is the expectation that people stay in private bed and breakfasts rather than state hotels.

Unfortunately, some people in the Administration tried to hide that and too much of the media was misled and helped to create the problem.